Meloy v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
This text of 66 A. 253 (Meloy v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There was no evidence of negligence on the part of defendant. The car going south on Second street reached the corner of Lombard at which point the middle of the street is occupied by a market shed, narrowing the street so that the track on the east side is close to the shed. As the car turned the curve into the track along the shed, the plaintiff, a boy of seven years, who was playing tag in the market shed, darted out and ran into the fender in the front of the car. The testimony to these facts is practically undisputed, and brings tbe case clearly under the authority of Sontgen v. Kittanning, etc., St. Ry. Co., 213 Pa. 114.
J udgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 A. 253, 217 Pa. 189, 1907 Pa. LEXIS 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meloy-v-philadelphia-rapid-transit-co-pa-1907.